One of the more macabre incidents in world sport in recent times was brought to a judicial conclusion a couple of days back when Dean Richards, former England and Lions No. 8 and the former director of rugby for Harlequins was banned from coaching for three years after being found guilty of serial cheating.
For those unfamiliar with this story, it goes back to the closing minutes of the Heineken Cup quarter final against Leinster last season. With Quins trailing by a point, Tom Williams came off under the blood rule, which in turn allowed for the re-entry of goal kicker Nick Evans.
The cameras caught the Quins physio slipping Williams a little something, what we now know to be some sort of blood capsule, presumably ordered by mail from one of those joke shop ads at the back of Mad magazines, replete with whoopee cushion.
The club phsyio involved, who happens to be Australian, was rubbed out for two years. But the club doctor, who happens to be female, got away with a light rap over the knuckles.
A key aspect about this whole matter has been the premeditation involved (what we might loosely describe as match day planning), and the presentation of evidence that indicated it was not an isolated incident.
I’ve raised this case because:
1. It’s a bit out of left field
2. I have an interest in the various rules and philosophies that surround this whole area of interchange/substitution in the four football codes.
A question that arises for me immediately is whether it is worthwhile having such stringent rules of substitution if it means that coaches will think up ingenious ways of substituting players to meet an urgent tactical need out on the field.
It’s curious that well into last century, all four codes had fairly similar principles in terms of when and how often players could be substituted, but then rules started to diverge from the 1970s onwards, to where we are today, where all four codes have differing approaches in this respect.
The different rules are, in most cases, backed by different philosophies as to what the respective games entail.
I would like to you use this odd sporting story as a catalyst to explore people’s views on the different rules and philosophies that are currently at work in the four codes surrounding the interchange or substitution of players.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
I actually did read - I may even have read it twice - but I'm not sure it helped me any!!
Derm
Roar Guru
Eh yes. Since you asked me to clarify it for you - I gave you the details. If you couldn't be arsed reading them, there's nowt I can do about it. It ain't that difficult. Two separate rules were bent. Claiming an injured player as being tactically substituted (i.e. we're taking his particular talent off and putting on another talent), and faking a blood injury. What's puzzling is how were they going to arrange a blood injury to get Evans back on if Malone hadn't got injured? Or was Malone sent out with a capsule as well but didn't get a chance to use it? Never mind.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
pothale maayte - I've only got an IQ of 140 - do you truly expect me to follow all that??!!
Derm
Roar Guru
The rule on a blood substitution broadly is that if a player is bloodied sufficiently in a ref's view, he allows the player to be temporarily replaced. If cut is so severe that player can't go back on, then the player is deemed subbed. In Evans case, he was injured. He was carrying an ankle injury from a previous match. I don't think that was faked, but it may not have as been as severe as made out. When he was replaced for a thigh/knee injury in the 47th minute by Malone, unbeknownst to Leinster, Richards or assistant said that Evans removal was a tactical substitution, even though Evans was clearly injured. Evans went to the bench but shortly afterwards got back on the exercise bike. It was clear that they were looking to bring him back on. Except how? This was remarked on by the Sky commentators who couldn't figure how he could be brought back on, since he'd been subbed as far as they were concerned - and the rest of the watching public. Malone played on and got himself injured to be replaced by Williams in the 69th minute. That was the point the decision got made for the fake blood. They wouldn't have known that Malone would be injured as a sub. Under Exception 1 of Law 3.12, a player who is tactically substituted, rather than replaced, is entitled to return to the field for blood reasons. Given that Evans was clearly injured, Harlequins were already bending the rules by sending him back on. Leinster management starting complaining at side of pitch. Nigel Owens came across and said to the TJ: (pointing to Evans) "If his substitute's card was marked substitution, he can come on. If it's marked as replacement, he cant." TJ says: "It's marked as tactical." Owens said: "that is fine, he can come on. (to Leinster protesters" He's quite entitled to come on as blood." Nigel Owens knew his stuff. Quins played quite an obscure rule, whereby a subbed player who has been deemed to be a tactical substitution, is allowed come back on in the even of a blood injury. Not many people knew that. Richards and his people did.
Ian Noble
Guest
"I am a lifelong Quins supporter and my hearts bleeds to see this most blue-blooded of sporting institutions reduced to such an abject state. Half of my chums in the City have already deserted to Wasps or Sarries, and I suspect the other half shan’t be long in following." Quite obviosly VC you are a fair weather fan, I was at the Stoop on Tuesday for "meeting the squad" session together with many true fans. Tom Williams was there, together with the other squad members. Evans. Botha, Easter, Care, Moyne et all were in good form and quite clearly they are pulling together. Sometimes in adversity it brings the best out of a team, we shall see but there is a inner steel. "Blood Gate" has opened a can of worms and hopefully what has happened will be good for the game, albeit the RFU still have to have their say about the other incidents.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Pip..promise,no more after this one...I,too,enjoy a rolling moll and a good ruck...And dont look for any spelling mistakes..there aren't any.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Vinay I'm enjoying your pithy posts - but I have to admit that they are starting to make my head spin a bit!!
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Pip..talking of safeguarding ......rules are like virginity...meant to be lost
Pippinu
Roar Guru
pothale I know there is a certain nuance you are trying to get across, but sorry, I'm not quite picking it up. You appear to be saying that one of the categories makes it harder to get back on? maybe impossible? So presumably he was put into a category where he could only get back on if someone was injured? So what if he had been in the other category? He could not have got back on at all? Are there restrictions in terms of how you utilise the repsective categories? How you decide to use one or the other? I have to say - why is it rugby that always goes out of its way to over-complicate something that should be relatively straight forward? (sorry guys, but I sometimes have to shake my head at how convoluted some if these different rules get) And to what end? What exactly is being safeguarded?
Derm
Roar Guru
As I recall, the rule used in this incident was a lesser known one. And it suggests a fair degree of thought beforehand. Nick Evans was carrying an injury going into the game. Early on in the game, he got tackled, got up slowly and seemed to be crocked. He played on for a bit, but signalled that he needed to come off. He wasn't replaced, instead he was tactically replaced, if I have the lingo right. the commentator at the time remarked that Evans didn;t do the usual and put on his jacket and sit on the bench. Instead, he rested for a short while and then got up on an exercise bike to keep himself wam. It was clear that Quins were planning to bring him back on. The question is at what point did they decide to make it a tactical replacement as opposed to a substitution? Before the game was even started? Or at the time of his injury, and a quick decision was made to call it a tactical sub? The only way that Evans could go back on, having already come off, was that he had to have been tactically replaced, which is what Nigel Owens said to the touch Joudge when Leinster queried the legality of the switch. Richards said afterwards when qustioned about it, somewhat smugly, that some people just had to know the rules.
Derm
Roar Guru
Richards got three years just for this specific incident. The RFU and other bodies are now going to investigate Williams claims' that this happened in four matches specifically cited by Williams in his evidence who must have been feeling pretty pissed at having been dumped by the club, and therefore, decided to sing like a canary. He's young, but he participated in the scam. And KO, I don't believe the wink was what undid him. The Leinster officials protested the substitution, and when they saw it was because of a blood injury, the Leinster Doctor, Arthur Tanner, pursued the player down the tunnel, and banged on the dressing room door to demand to see the cut. Meanwhile, inside the dressing room, Williams' mouth was cut to make it 'real'. I do not believe this is the first time this has occurred, but so blatant a scam, with a river of blood pouring out of his mouth, was a much greater giveaway to a trained doctor's eye, than a wink, that was only picked up by camera in studio and examined after the event. The doctor - who happens to be female - did not get off lightly. What her gender has to do with it, I'm not sure. However, the biggest problem for this inquiry is that her tenure and behaviour do not fall under their remit. She will be investigated by the relevant medical body. So I suspect another axe will fall. Unless the only part she played was in cutting the player's mouth, when the physio and Richards realised they'd been nabbed, and people were going to pursue it.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Warren Fantastic post and insight.
Knives Out
Guest
Because nobody wants to end up looking like Mickey Rourke.
Warren
Guest
Melon, good points and interesting views, same for you Pip. My 2 cents worth is that the inevitable commercialisation of our game (and others) has led to a hybridisation that satisfies a predominantly TV audience. There is a formula to these things, and many ball sports are getting closer and closer to the formula (and in some ways, to each other). Look at defensive lines run in rugby now and compare those to NRL. Ditto the number of players committed to a ruck. Perhaps we need to attempt to understand what drew us to the game in the first place and this, of course is a highly individual exercise. My appreciation for the game revolves around likening it to a game of chess. But "for keeps"... This is about strategy and tactics, agility combined with strength, brute force and deft touch... There is just as much beauty and skill in a well executed rolling maul as there is in a startling backline move. A well cleaned out ruck is also a great skill (Melon, don't get me started on that one..). We see very little of this stuff in favour of the formula - we think that to satisfy the punter we need to toss the ball wide at all costs and at every occassion. I don't fully buy the "spectator must get a spectacle" view. There are enough beautiful things about the game without having to resort to turning it into NRL-basketball. The game, for me, is also about lasting the whole 80 minutes, and I find the substitutions take away from this. You've just worked your backside off for 60 mins getting on top of your opponent only to find him subbed and replaced by a fresh one. The game is about tenacity, reactions under pressure and extreme exhaustion. I can't prove this but I reckon 15 yrs ago the majority of tries were scored in the last 20-30 minutes, due in great part to fatigue. This was a part of the challenge and I saw many games that were seemingly won in the first half thrown wide open in the second. As a spectacle this is great. You really don't see too much of this these days. It is easy to fall into the trap of stasis with no acceptance of the inevitability of change. However, we need to first identify what, exactly, in our game makes it so special and these pillars should be sacrosanct. I believe we have got this wrong and have tinkered with some of the basic fabric of the game. This leaves me a worried man and also a less satisfied spectator.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Yes - good question - that was the unique part of this episode (and which got me thinking of those Vampire capsules that would be advertised at the back of Mad magazine, alongside the whoopee cushions). The truth is that what you suggest does happen - and this does get me questioning the merit of this particular rule.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Yes - exactly - that's precisely where I was wanting to head - why have the different rules evolved the way they have - and I think you have nailed it with this line: to take men to the edge of exhaustion... I agree with you - and no - I don't take it as an insult towards any other code - nor should anyone else. I think it's fascinating to sit down, have a hard, cold look at the codes - and see why things have evolved in different ways. Sometimes it's logical - other times it's not - but games are a bit like languages - change often occurs without any logical reason - it just happens. In the rugby case, the question does arise, if lots of coaches are working out ways to flip this basic tenet on its head, thinking to themselves: bugger this play till you drop bull shit - I've got a game of footy to win!! Then it starts to become a reasonable thing to ask whether the rules (in this specfiic instance) are doing the game any favours. For instance, in the world of professional sport, in the modern era, where it's all part of the entertainment business - if you pay your $40 at the gate, so you have a right to see two reasonably equivalent teams have a fair dinkum crack at each other? And if one team is under the pump in a physical sense, but the strict letter of the law is hampering that team from doing anything, such that they get run over in the last 10 minutes - is that really fair on the pundit paying the cash at the gate? Should the rules be more about allowing the coach to match the other team for the whole 80 minutes, rather than it being a mere war of attrition. It's true that many non-AFL fans scoff at the unlimited interchange rule that we apply. But alternatively, a sports scientist can respond with the following: even with all the rests, the AFL guys are running far more than any other code, expending far more energy than any other code and are doing it a higher average speed than any other code. Armed with those facts - what's wrong with a coach being allowed to rotate players ad infinitum? It's this sort of thinking that I'm trying to put a blow torch on. But yes - at the end of the day - all the codes are different - and that's a truly wonderful thing.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Why use capsules? Why not bleed the hard way or use a razor like pro-wrestling?
Who Needs Melon
Roar Guru
Pip, This is a rugby blog. We're not much good at philosi-whatsit. I take it you are suggesting that the different cultures/attitudes of those that play the different games have contributed to the rules that have evolved. So, for instance, what do the stringent rules in rugby imply about the culture that spawned them? A pretty big question. I FEEL that in rugby at least the desire has always been to take men to the edge of exhaustion or to see what they are made of when confronted with extreme physical duress. A bit like boxing. Soccer/football on the other hand seems to revere the skill of the players more. And gridiron spectators are watching for tactics and 'plays'. AFL is probably more towards the soccer end of the spectrum than the rugby/boxing end. Am I starting to answer the question you posed? MY question is: What do you want to see in rugby? As everyone will acknowledge, back in the days of rucking, rugby was a lot rougher. I have vivid memories of bandaged but still blood- and mud-spattered men heaving for breath while preparing for a lineout or scrum - even most of the backs got bloody and muddy. To be subbed off 'early' was a bit of an insult - i.e. you'd been shown not to 'have it' to the same degree as the other men on the field. Call me a dinosaur but I liked this aspect of rugby and though we've slid a little towards the soccer end of the spectrum, I hope we don't slide any more. PS. I'm not trying insulting soccer, AFL, gridiron, those that play or watch those games or anyone else or claim that one game is 'better' than another - I just think each focusses on slightly different things... and vive la difference!
Skip
Guest
The fake blood case sets an interesting precedent. I am not a legal man, I assume the charge against Quins is in essence faking an injury to gain an advantage. In Rugby Does the Match review panel have the ability to impose penalties on layers that fake injuries, such as a dive to gain advantage. If not they should be able to!
onside
Guest
Quingate